'Odyssey' Ticketing Frenzy Sparks Debate Over Disabled Seating: "Open Empty Seats" vs. "Even 1% Should Remain Protected"

Calls to Open Accessible Seats to General Public Amid Intensified "Ticketing Wars"

Current Standard: At Least 1% of Total Seats Reserved

7 Out of 10 Accessible Seats Are Placed in the Front Row

A surprising controversy has arisen over seating for disabled viewers in movie theaters as competition for special screenings such as IMAX intensifies due to the recent success of blockbuster films. Some moviegoers have argued that if seats reserved for people with disabilities are not sold before bookings close, these seats should be made available to the general public, or that the number of accessible seats should be reduced altogether. On the other hand, there is significant backlash against the view that even the small spaces—just over 1% of total seats—should be converted for greater booking efficiency, with critics claiming this disregards the cultural rights of people with disabilities.

With the recent blockbuster movie hits causing heated competition for bookings in special theaters like IMAX, an unexpected debate has erupted over disabled seating at cinemas. Some audience members are arguing that if disabled seats are not sold out by the booking deadline, they should be opened to general viewers or that the number of disabled seats should be reduced altogether. Photo by Kang Jinhyung aymsdream@

On September 1, Yonhap News Agency reported ongoing controversy over accessible seating amid a wave of “ticketing wars” for special theaters fueled by blockbuster titles such as ‘Odyssey’ and ‘Spider-Man: Brand New Day.’ The catalyst for the debate was the CGV Yongsan iPark Mall IMAX theater, commonly referred to as ‘Yongamax.’ A recent online screenshot of the Yongsan IMAX theater’s 624 seats showed all general seats had sold out, leaving only the six disabled-access seats available. During the run of ‘Odyssey,’ it was essentially impossible to find an empty seat in the Yongsan IMAX theater outside the reserved accessible seats, from the first screening in the morning to late-night shows.

"Utilize Empty Seats" vs. "Minimum Right to Cultural Access"—Debate Rages Online

Some online users, seeing this situation, suggested that the accessible seats should be sold to general customers only for showings when they remain unsold by disabled customers. There were calls to convert unsold accessible seats to general seats a set amount of time before a screening or implement such policies flexibly at high-demand special theaters that sell out for extended periods. Another viewpoint argued selling empty accessible seats in large multiplexes with multiple daily shows would “maximize efficiency,” enabling many more people to see movies over time.

The controversy was ignited by the so-called 'Yong-A-Mac,' referring to the CGV Yongsan I'Park Mall IMAX theater. Recently, an online screenshot of the reservation page for the 624-seat Yongsan IMAX theater showed that all regular seats had been sold out, with only six seats reserved for disabled viewers remaining. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

Online, comments included, “Can’t theaters just prioritize disabled viewers until right before the screening and then sell the remaining seats to the general public?” and “Leaving seats empty is a loss for the theater.” But many pushed back. Especially given there are just six accessible seats among 624, critics argue that framing them as a source of “inefficiency” is excessive.

Other comments included: “Non-disabled people shouldn’t think of accessible seats as options open to them in the first place,” “Demanding even the 1% of seats reserved for people with disabilities be released to general customers is unreasonable,” and “The fierce ticketing competition stems from insufficient supply of special theaters, not from the presence of accessible seats.” Some compared the argument to converting empty women’s restrooms or disabled parking spaces for other uses simply because they sit unused for a moment, stressing that disabled seating should not be seen as just another “unsold seat.” Legally, accessible seating differs fundamentally from other theater seats.

Accessible Seats—“Sell Them If Empty” Mentality…7 Out of 10 Are Located in the Front Row, Often Shunned Even by Non-Disabled Patrons

Current law (the “Act on Guarantee of Convenience of Persons with Disabilities, the Aged and Pregnant Women”) and its enforcement decree require at least 1% of all seats in performance halls, assembly halls, and auditoriums to be accessible for people with disabilities. If there are 2,000 seats or more in a venue, at least 20 must be reserved for this purpose.

However, the current “1%” standard is another source of controversy. Because the legal standard applies to the total number of seats in a theater complex—not to each individual screening room—some screens may have no accessible seats at all. The National Human Rights Commission recommended to the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 2025 that the standard be revised from “1% of seats in the entire theater” to “1% of seats in each screening room.” It also advised multiplex operators to implement phased improvement plans to ensure people with disabilities can access screens showing the films they want to watch.

On the 10th, as sweltering heat intensified, citizens are visiting a movie theater in downtown Seoul. Photo by Mun Honam munonam@

Contrary to recent arguments for reducing the number of accessible seats, advocacy groups in the disability rights field argue for strengthening installation standards to ensure the opportunity for real use. An even larger problem, many say, is the location of accessible seating, not just the total count. According to data from the Korean Film Council, of 5,987 accessible seats at the four major domestic multiplex chains (CJ CGV, Lotte Cinema, Megabox, CineQ) as of last year, 4,182—69.9%—were in the very front row. Only 1,564 seats (26.1%) were in the back row, and just 241 (4.0%) in the middle rows. This means roughly 7 out of every 10 accessible seats are concentrated at the very front—locations that even most general viewers avoid.

The front row, especially in IMAX or special large-screen theaters, can make it difficult to take in the entire screen, and many customers report neck pain or dizziness from having to look up for extended periods. Since the release of ‘Odyssey,’ there has even been a joke referring to “Jaw-dyssey,” meaning the actor’s jaw appears especially pronounced when sitting so close to the screen.

While non-disabled patrons can choose middle or back rows to avoid the discomfort, wheelchair users often have no choice at all. Current regulations governing accessibility mandate that accessible seats should in principle be placed in the middle or back rows, unless the distance from the screen in the front row is sufficient to avoid discomfort. In the middle and back rows, distance between seats must be greater than for general seating to ensure disabled patrons’ views are not obstructed.

However, the law lacks specific definitions or metrics for what constitutes “sufficient distance to avoid discomfort,” or for viewing angles, resulting in many accessible seats remaining in the front. For this reason, disability advocacy organizations emphasize that reform should not merely focus on the number of seats, but should aim to offer a comparable viewing experience to that of non-disabled audiences.

There are numerous other barriers to moviegoing for those with disabilities aside from seating. Wheelchair users must navigate stairs, platforms, separate elevator locations, heavy doors, and check the accessibility of restrooms, among other factors. In some theaters, even when accessible seating is available, the route may be too complex or require staff assistance to actually reach those seats.

International standards also support the argument that seats for people with disabilities should not be seen as “empty seats for sale until showtime.” The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Article 30, stipulates that people with disabilities have an equal right to participate in cultural life and that there must be appropriate measures to enable access to cinemas and other cultural venues.

Experts argue the issue should be viewed from the standpoint of cultural access rights, not just seat sales or turnover. While accessible seats may occasionally appear to be “wasted space” when empty, permanent availability ensures people with disabilities can choose to see a film spontaneously, just as non-disabled viewers can. CGV has stated it has no plans to open accessible seats to general audiences, explaining that these seats exist to guarantee equal access to moviegoing for customers with mobility or access challenges.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.